How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[uwot]

Immanuel Can: You keep making insulting, unfounded claims regarding atheists.

Thank you for the permission; however, none of your adjectives is true.

I've provided the foundation for my claims, and I've made no insult.

Mr Can, you have repeatedly called 'Atheists' irrational. It has been pointed out to you on innumerable occasions that your capitalised 'Atheists' are a figment of your imagination. Well, not even yours; the fact that your arguments are pretty much verbatim William Lane Craig doesn't lend them any weight. Like Craig, you have invented a straw man, and it is this hogtied gimp that you congratulate yourself for flagellating on this forum, even though it is simply your own fantasy that you are whipping.

I'm speaking the simple truth, as Atheists themselves have insisted upon telling it to me.

Most of us don't care anymore, we are resigned to the fact that you are simply going to repeat your false premises and delude yourself that your arguments are therefore sound. You are talking bollocks and most of us know it.

[Dontaskme]

If negatively charged particles repel other negatively charged particles while being attracted to positively charged particles, we can formulate physical laws regarding such interactions involving charged particles. This can be done without there being any law giver. If morality was objective, the same thing would be true --- morality would not require any so--called law giver. This is simply an assumption that theists make, without any rational basis for doing so.

The same thing could only be true if opposites exist in the same moment/space which they do absolutely. It's an absolute law and requirement.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Many crimes have been done in the name of religion, explicitly or in spite of. The Crusades is a famous case in history. Being religious is no guarantee that crimes such as raping or murder won't occur, just less likely to occur.

PhilX

More likely if history and prison populations are anything to go by.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Many crimes have been done in the name of religion, explicitly or in spite of. The Crusades is a famous case in history. Being religious is no guarantee that crimes such as raping or murder won't occur, just less likely to occur.

PhilX

More likely if history and prison populations are anything to go by.

What % of the population has gone to jail due to religion?
According to stats, about 5% of the US population has gone to jail. Some studies say the main reason why that happens is the war on drugs, other reasons are cited (tougher laws, longer sentences, etc.) But none say that religion is a significant factor.

How about your country?

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Many crimes have been done in the name of religion, explicitly or in spite of. The Crusades is a famous case in history. Being religious is no guarantee that crimes such as raping or murder won't occur, just less likely to occur.

PhilX

More likely if history and prison populations are anything to go by.

What % of the population has gone to jail due to religion?
According to stats, about 5% of the US population has gone to jail. Some studies say the main reason why that happens is the war on drugs, other reasons are cited (tougher laws, longer sentences, etc.) But none say that religion is a significant factor.

How about your country?

PhilX

You said rape and murder was less likely to occur when someone is religious. I can't imagine what you are basing that on.

[Walker]

More likely if history and prison populations are anything to go by.

What % of the population has gone to jail due to religion?
According to stats, about 5% of the US population has gone to jail. Some studies say the main reason why that happens is the war on drugs, other reasons are cited (tougher laws, longer sentences, etc.) But none say that religion is a significant factor.

How about your country?

PhilX

You said rape and murder was less likely to occur when someone is religious. I can't imagine what you are basing that on.

The scientific theory of epigenics indicates that raping is inherent, that is, in the genes. The genetic tendency to rape is passed on to the next generation, and increases the odds for propagation of the species.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... enes-wrong

However, people override impulses all the time, for various reasons. Men self-regulate shouting in public to sporting events lest someone call security although Lord knows they often have just cause, people jump out of airplanes for cheap thrills, and if they carry the gene then those who follow a religious moral code override the genetic hard-wiring to rape, if that’s the code of the religion. On the flip side, if a religion advocates the murder of unbelievers then it too may be overriding impulses caused by hard-wired genes of cooperation naturally selected over time to promote efficient societal intercourse. From this we can conclude that competing genes of violence and peace lead to irrational acts that are then justified with twists and turns of rationality, or as James Lileks said, the mind forever turns on the lathe of its own contradictions.

[thedoc]

Mr Can, you have repeatedly called 'Atheists' irrational.

I believe this is incorrect, IC has certainly stated that Atheism is probably irrational, but I do not recall him singling any particular Atheist or group of Atheists and calling them irrational

[Immanuel Can]

Mr Can, you have repeatedly called 'Atheists' irrational.

I believe this is incorrect, IC has certainly stated that Atheism is probably irrational, but I do not recall him singling any particular Atheist or group of Atheists and calling them irrational

Right again, thedoc.

Atheism is irrational. The people who believe in it (i.e. "Atheists) may be, in other ways, rational to one degree or another -- outside of their Atheism, of course. In that area, they remain manifestly irrational.

[Science Fan]

Imagine if atheists responded in kind and wrote some "humanistic manifesto" similar to the Bible. If atheists wrote such a manifesto and in that manifesto stated that no atheist should ever marry a theist, because a theist was morally evil, I'm sure the religious communities would be in an uproar and would condemn atheists for being bigots. Yet, when the Christian Bible states that Christians should not marry atheists because atheists are evil, we are supposed to accept this mindless bigotry against atheists as morally acceptable? In the 21st century? I refuse to do that.

In the USA, I get to hear from people like Ann Coulter how evil I am for being an unbeliever. Where is the outrage when a leading GOP politician who ran for president insulted Daniel Radcliffe for being an ungrateful atheist? It's not just that atheists are a small minority, it's that it still remains socially acceptable in the USA to insult, mock and demonize atheists. Fighting against such bigotry is about civil rights, freedom of speech, and individual liberty. I would much rather be on the side of personal liberty in this fight than join with those who condemn atheists, because in condemning atheists, one is condemning the right of people to express their conscience.

[Immanuel Can]

Imagine if atheists responded in kind and wrote some "humanistic manifesto" similar to the Bible.

They did. Last time I looked, they were up to three (3) of them.

If atheists wrote such a manifesto and in that manifesto stated that no atheist should ever marry a theist, because a theist was morally evil, I'm sure the religious communities would be in an uproar and would condemn atheists for being bigots.

You're incorrect. We would agree entirely with that. It's good, solid common sense.

Someone who has dedicated his or her life to one thing makes a horrible marriage partner for someone who has dedicated him or herself to the opposite. They destroy each other's happiness and ambitions, because every "win" for one is a "loss" for the other. Marriages don't survive on that basis; or else they survive only by the entire suppression of one partner.

And I think you wouldn't want that. I wouldn't either.

... it still remains socially acceptable in the USA to insult, mock and demonize atheists.

I can't speak to that. I know nothing about such a situation.

What I know is that the press thinks it's open season on Christians, and it's getting worse for Jews.

... in condemning atheists, one is condemning the right of people to express their conscience.

Actually, I agree with that wholeheartedly. A person should have a right to be whatever his or her conscience instructs him or her to be. I'd stand on that principle completely.

However, that doesn't mean that people are above being questioned on what they believe, and can't be asked for reasons to support what they say. Nobody gets a free ticket in that regard. Because the flip side of allowing free conscience is that you've also got to allow for criticism. Unless views can be subjected to skeptical review, they will lead to bad or false conscience.

We're not far apart on that. I think we both believe in free speech, free right of dissent, and free conscience.

Atheists should be allowed to believe as their consciences lead. But Atheism is still irrational, and a belief unworthy of the human conscience. In that regard, Atheism is much like Scientology...those people also have the right to believe it if their consciences lead them to do so; but it doesn't make them right.

P.S. -- Have you given up on finding that one moral precept every Atheist must obey? If so, what conclusion must you now draw about Atheism? That it's totally amoral....for what else can it be?

[Lacewing]

finding that one moral precept every Atheist must obey

So, you're asking an atheist to disprove your false judgements/assessments based only on the narrow rules/logic of your own thinking? Can you not comprehend that there are completely different ways of thinking, speaking, and manifesting that are not confined to your understanding, yet are fully functioning in the higher qualities all beings might naturally gravitate toward? There does not need to be a commander, or anything to be "obeyed". This is your thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

finding that one moral precept every Atheist must obey

So, you're asking an atheist to disprove your false judgements/assessments based only on the narrow rules/logic of your own thinking?

It was SF who insisted that Atheism was a moral position. If so, it should not be more than he can do to provide a single moral precept. Absent that, there's no evidence to justify his claim.

I assume, from your response, that you haven't got anything either. Not a surprise, really.

[Lacewing]

I assume, from your response, that you haven't got anything either. Not a surprise, really.

It's not a surprise for the reason I just explained to you, which you do seem unable to grasp.

[duszek]

Hi Lacewing !

I thought you planned spending the rest of your life in a solitary cabin in the woods of northern Canada ?
Are you back to idle chit-chat ?

[thedoc]

I assume, from your response, that you haven't got anything either. Not a surprise, really.

It's not a surprise for the reason I just explained to you, which you do seem unable to grasp.

As has been stated There is no reason to believe that an Atheist would not be a moral person, on that IC and I have agreed repeatedly. The statement is that there is no basis in Atheism on which to base this morality. In fact it is possible that some Atheists are more moral than some Christians, or someone who holds to another religion, but whereas the religious person has the religion (and personal integrity) on which to base the morality, the Atheist must base their morality on something other than Atheism.